Court Confirms Arbitration Award Despite Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Claim of Failure to Receive Notice that Award Was Posted on E-Courts

Defendant Richard Bahadurian contracted with plaintiff Deegan Roofing, Inc. to repair a section of roof on a commercial building defendant owned.  After the work was performed and defendant failed to pay for the work, plaintiff filed a breach of contract lawsuit to recover the unpaid invoice, interest, cost and attorney’s fees.  The lawsuit proceeded to the court-ordered arbitration, in which the arbitrator ruled in favor of plaintiff, entering an award, plus counsel fees to be determined by the court.  The issue in Deegan Roofing, Inc. v. Bahadurian, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 764 (App. Div. May 19, 2023) was whether the defendant was entitled to relief from the 30-day period to file for a trial de novo after the arbitration award because he did not receive an e-mail from the court stating that the award had been posted on e-Courts.

Defendant had admitted that he did not pay for the work performed but claimed that the contractor plaintiff caused “extensive and significant damage” to his building, as well as to his commercial tenant’s equipment and personal property.  The parties conducted discovery and, thereafter, attended the court-ordered arbitration on September 30, 2020.  The arbitrator ruled in favor of plaintiff, awarding $34,150, plus counsel fees and costs to be determined by the court and dismissing defendant’s counterclaim.  At the hearing, the arbitrator advised counsel that the decision would be uploaded into e-Courts.  On October 1, 2020, in fact, the arbitration award was entered into e-Courts. However, defendant’s counsel claimed that he never received the notice that the award had been entered into e-Courts.

In New Jersey State court, e-Courts is an electronic filing system in which all pleadings, correspondence, orders, etc., including an arbitration award are posted onto the on-line docket.  Once they are posted, all counsel of record, would normally receive an e-mail notifying that there was an item posted to the e-Court docket for that particular case.

Following the arbitration hearing, defense counsel e-mailed plaintiff’s attorney expressing his dissatisfaction with the award and advised that a request for a trial de novo would be filed.  The de novo request was due in thirty (30) days from the date the arbitration award was entered into e-Courts.  Hence, it was due by November 2, 2020.  While it is mandatory to participate in the court arbitration, any party can file and serve a notice of rejection of the award and a demand for a trial de novo.  

If the case has not been settled and no party has filed for a trial de novo, within fifty (50) days of the award, any party can file a motion to confirm the arbitration award.  On November 3, 2020, plaintiff did file a motion to confirm the arbitration award.  Defendant opposed the motion, claiming that he never received an e-mail advising the award was uploaded into e-Courts, nor did he receive a copy of the award.  One week after the motion to confirm the award was filed, defendant’s counsel filed a notice of demand for a trial de novo.

Thereafter, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award.  The court found that the defendant had failed to comply with the court rules which required a party to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration award and demand for a trial de novo within the thirty (30) day period after the filing of the award.

The court found that the award was uploaded to e-Courts on October 1, 2020.  Even though defendant’s counsel claimed he did not receive an e-mail stating the award was posted on e-Courts, that did not relieve him from filing a demand for a trial de novo within the thirty (30) day period.  The court found that the failure to receive this notice did not provide the “extraordinary circumstances” necessary to permit the filing of a trial de novo outside the prescribed thirty (30) day period.

Thereafter, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and ordered that the defendant pay plaintiffs $8,001 in counsel fees and costs.  The defendant appealed the court’s order denying the rejection of the trial de novo request and asked for the attorney’s fee award to be overturned as well.

Upon appeal, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court decision.  The Court noted that “extraordinary circumstances” to extend the thirty (30) day time frame should be strictly construed and it does not include excusable neglect nor does it encompass an attorney’s or their staff’s negligence or carelessness. 

The Court rejected defendant’s argument that his failure to receive an e-mail advising him that the arbitration award was posted as constituting “extraordinary circumstances” to extend the mandatory thirty (30) day filing period and permit the untimely November 10 de novo filing. 

The Court also affirmed the award for attorney’s fees, finding that attorney’s fees were permitted for the contract language.  Further, although the trial court should have permitted oral argument, it did perform a thorough analysis to arrive at the award.  The Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion in the counsel fee award.  Hence, the trial court’s decision to confirm the arbitration award was affirmed, as well as the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. 

Tags: arbitration, notice